On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I personally am not quite convinced about that, for the reason I tried > to explain in my previous messages. I see it as a poor alternative to > compression built into the data type. I do like the idea of compression > with external dictionary, however.
I think that compression built into the datatype and what is proposed here are both useful and everybody's free to work on either one as the prefer, so I don't see that as a reason not to accept this patch. And I think this patch can be a stepping stone toward compression with an external dictionary, so that seems like an affirmative reason to accept this patch. > But don't forget that it's not me in this thread - it's my evil twin, > moonlighting as Mr. Devil's lawyer ;-) Well, I don't mind you objecting to the patch under any persona, but so far I'm not finding your reasons convincing... -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
